Peter DeFazio
May. 10th, 2004 03:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusA while back, I wrote to my representatives to express my opposition to the Bush Regime's stupid "Federal Marriage Amendment" - a proposed Constitutional amendment declaring gays and lesbians to be second-class citizens.
Only Peter DeFazio responded. It's a form letter, but it's a letter relevant to the topic. I was impressed not just that he has customized form letters (after all, the technology to do it easily has only been around since the early 80's, and it usually takes Congress longer than that to catch on tot these things), but that he actually issued bold, clear, statements: "If this amendment comes up for a vote in Congress, I will oppose it" as opposed to the more weasily speak I'd expect, like "rest assured, I will give the matter my complete attention before casting my vote in a manner appropriate to the greatest benefit for my constituents".
I also liked how he points out other stuff that I should be opposing, and cites his record in voting against the Defense of Marriage Act back in 1996.
"I have a record. Here it is. I stand by it." Not the kind of thing I usually expect from a congress-critter.
Anyway, here's the letter, if you're curious:
Thanks for letting me know of your opposition to H.J. Res. 56, the "Federal Marriage Amendment," an
amendment to the U.S. Constitution which would define marriage as a "union between a man and a
woman." I appreciate hearing from you and share your concerns.
This amendment is just the latest in a series of cynical attacks against individual liberties, civil
rights, and states rights by the White House and Republican majority in Congress. They have gone
after Oregon's Death With Dignity law, medical marijuana laws, the right to privacy through the USA
Patriot Act, and a woman's right to choose. In this particular instance, they have singled out gay
men and lesbians saying they are less than equal and don't deserve the same rights and protections
under the law that the rest of society enjoys. If this amendment comes up for a vote in Congress, I
will oppose it.
In 1996, I was one of only 67 Members of Congress to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act because
I felt it was a solution in search of a problem. The full faith and credit clause of the U.S.
Constitution has never required a state to recognize a marriage from another state - although many
states have chosen to do so. I believe the states should continue to determine these issues as they
see fit, as they have done for more than 200 years.
Again, thanks for you message. Please stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Peter DeFazio
Member of Congress.
Only Peter DeFazio responded. It's a form letter, but it's a letter relevant to the topic. I was impressed not just that he has customized form letters (after all, the technology to do it easily has only been around since the early 80's, and it usually takes Congress longer than that to catch on tot these things), but that he actually issued bold, clear, statements: "If this amendment comes up for a vote in Congress, I will oppose it" as opposed to the more weasily speak I'd expect, like "rest assured, I will give the matter my complete attention before casting my vote in a manner appropriate to the greatest benefit for my constituents".
I also liked how he points out other stuff that I should be opposing, and cites his record in voting against the Defense of Marriage Act back in 1996.
"I have a record. Here it is. I stand by it." Not the kind of thing I usually expect from a congress-critter.
Anyway, here's the letter, if you're curious:
Thanks for letting me know of your opposition to H.J. Res. 56, the "Federal Marriage Amendment," an
amendment to the U.S. Constitution which would define marriage as a "union between a man and a
woman." I appreciate hearing from you and share your concerns.
This amendment is just the latest in a series of cynical attacks against individual liberties, civil
rights, and states rights by the White House and Republican majority in Congress. They have gone
after Oregon's Death With Dignity law, medical marijuana laws, the right to privacy through the USA
Patriot Act, and a woman's right to choose. In this particular instance, they have singled out gay
men and lesbians saying they are less than equal and don't deserve the same rights and protections
under the law that the rest of society enjoys. If this amendment comes up for a vote in Congress, I
will oppose it.
In 1996, I was one of only 67 Members of Congress to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act because
I felt it was a solution in search of a problem. The full faith and credit clause of the U.S.
Constitution has never required a state to recognize a marriage from another state - although many
states have chosen to do so. I believe the states should continue to determine these issues as they
see fit, as they have done for more than 200 years.
Again, thanks for you message. Please stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Peter DeFazio
Member of Congress.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-10 10:26 pm (UTC)The Senators are not so responsive.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-11 06:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-11 07:08 pm (UTC)